Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 90
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    101

    28-105 or 28-135 for Canon 30D

    In followup to my thread:
    http://dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18413

    I now am deciding between these two.

    I've looked into the Canon EF 28-105 II USM and do find many positive things in terms of price vs quality. No real big issues etc. It's about 270 euro around here.

    What I have also looked into is the Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 USM IS (450 euro) because I do like to shoot in low light conditions without flash. As far as I've read the difference is in the IS and the wider range (excuse me if I'm not using the right terms here) but optically they are pretty equaled. The cons of the 135 are price and size/weight. It would be my primary lens for now so size/weight could be an issue but on the other hand I have 2 other digicams, a Canon G2 I use at the moment when I'm going somewhere and know I want to take photographs and can carry a little extra, and I use it at home. The second is a Canon A520 which is sitting in my purse so I always have it with me in case I want to photograph something. So if the weight is an issue I might go for the other two anyway....

    I could afford the 28-135 (only just) but I could also safe the cash and use that on another lens at some point. Right now I just want to get a feel for it all and see what I miss, the macro end or the zoom end.

    p.s. I'm also going to be shooting at a wedding in september, I won't be the 'real' photographer but I'd still like to be able to do a good job.

    Any advice/thoughts are appreciated.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    IS is of course mainly handy with static subjects, so longer shutter times do not matter (no subject motion to blur). In museums for instance you will have a lot of use for IS (when flash is not allowed).

    So, it really depends on what you think you will use the lens for. For weddings inside it often is more useful to have a lens with large aperture than to have IS (again if you do not want to flash everything).
    Some primes for instance might do well, or a light sensitive zoom.
    It does depend on the budget that you have available till the wedding. Maybe you will want an external flash, that will have to fit into your budget too.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    101
    The thing is, I've kind of always been against using flash whenever possible, and have tried loads of handheld shots without flash. This may be because the flash on a compact camera doesn't provide good results, and doesn't have much of a reach. But I've just always liked to do non-flash photography even in situations where it is allowed. Aside from the, in my opinion, nicer results, it's also non disturbing for people around you. I've had a few situations where people didn't notice me taking photo's cause I didn't use flash. I only turn the flash on if it's "the only way" so to speak. Plus I like nighttime shots though I do those on a tripod as much as I can but I would like to be able to take shots in darker areas without having to drag the tripod along.

    So that whole idea is kind of convincing me to get the IS lens. Then there's the cons: price, weight, size. Because I'm not sure if I can see these lenses side by side I can't judge the latter two up close. So, does anyone have any idea about that? I'm currently waiting for the store where I bought the 30D while they check the price and delivery estimate for these lenses since they have to order them first. I could go somewhere else but I like their service and that they know what they're talking about etc. So I'm willing to wait that out a bit (though it's trying my patience quite a bit, I'm really itching to start using that beautiful camera now!!)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    3,109
    I've owned both lenses and kept the 28-105. The 28-135 is bigger, heavier and more expensive. But it also slower throughout most of the zoom range. Don't quote me but my recollection is the 28-135 was already at f5.6 by about 70mm whereas the 28-105 was at f4 and doesn't hit f4.5 until around 90mm. So in a sense you need the IS on the 28-135 or more light than you would with the 28-105. But make no mistake - neither of these lenses are really good low light lenses. If you need low light shooting you'll want something with a f2.8 apeture which means (for zoom lenses) one of the Canon "L's" or the Tamron or Sigma 2.8 wide angle zooms. Otherwise plan on high ISO's and/or learning how to use the flash on your camera.
    Canon A720 IS, 40D w/ BG-E2N, 28 1.8, 50 1.4, Sigma 70 2.8 macro, 17-40 F4 L, 24-105 F4 L IS, 70-200 F4 L IS, 430 EX, Kenko 2X TC & Ext Tubes, AB strobes and more...
    View my photo galleries here: imageevent.com/24peter

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Near St. Louis
    Posts
    3,528
    I purchased the 28-105 from my upcoming trip to Florida. I can't really comment on it too much as I have not used it all that much. I much prefer my primes over that zoom. The images that I have taken with it have not been as sharp as my primes.

    It focuses fast and accurate though and is super quiet. Its a nice lens - a good starter lens for sure.
    Last edited by aparmley; 03-27-2006 at 01:49 PM.
    Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Flickr | Twitter

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    A common misconception is that IS automatically makes a slow lens a good lens for lowlight. That's not really true. All IS does is help remove the shake factor when shooting, regardless of the amount of light you have to work with.

    For a wedding or other truly lowlight even, you need a fast lens. Period. This means a wide (small f number) to let more light into the camera. Without resorting to flash, there's no way around it. IS will help you for some parts like the slow movement in the ceremony, but ideally that would be coupled with an already fast lens, so you can stop down just a bit for more depth of field. A matter of choice, not desperation. You can then open the lens back up when you need to "freeze" movement again. You'll have blur if you try to take a picture of someone walking using a slow lens, IS or not. Background will be nice and sharp with IS but the person walking will be...well walking. heh.

    My point really boils down to this: you'll get a lot further along in your photographic endeavors with a faster lens without IS than a slower lens with IS. Unless, of course, you have severe shakes and only ever shoot in daylight.
    Last edited by cdifoto; 03-27-2006 at 10:57 AM.
    Ouch.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    539
    Hi kvdnberg,

    Between the two, I'd get the 28-135. You mentioned that you're using a 30d which has a 1.6x crop factor, so the range is really 44.8-216, which may not be as wide as you'd expect. For low light situations without flash, you can try to bump up the ISO since the 30d is such a low noise performer and the IS will help you a bit as long as your subjects remain still.

    Strictly from a learning perspective, are you considering any fixed focal length lens? A 50mm 1.8 should cost much less, and you can learn quite a bit on composition with that. Plus, it's a "natural" low-light performer.

    -noyjimi

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    101
    I have looked into the 50mm 1.8 and it seems like a great lens for the price. I am tempted because of it's weight and size and not unimportantly to an impatient person like me, the store I'm dealing with has it in stock...

    I'm just not sure. My dad who is not a hobbyist in terms of photography but has used a minolta SLR often years ago is convinced I wouldn't use it much because of the hassle of exchanging lenses.

    Because I'm not that well versed in all the terms and what they mean to your photographs etc. I'm not sure - what is the added value of the 50mm prime? Why should I or should I not get one?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Near St. Louis
    Posts
    3,528
    Quote Originally Posted by kvdnberg
    I have looked into the 50mm 1.8 and it seems like a great lens for the price. I am tempted because of it's weight and size and not unimportantly to an impatient person like me, the store I'm dealing with has it in stock...

    I'm just not sure. My dad who is not a hobbyist in terms of photography but has used a minolta SLR often years ago is convinced I wouldn't use it much because of the hassle of exchanging lenses.

    Because I'm not that well versed in all the terms and what they mean to your photographs etc. I'm not sure - what is the added value of the 50mm prime? Why should I or should I not get one?
    I will say why you shouldn't get one.

    First off its 80 bucks - Quality control isn't the best on a 80 dollar product. Some people have sharp 50's some have 50's with focus problems. I am the latter. My 50 1.8 was recently replaced with the 50 1.4 USM version. Its a night and day difference in quality and performance for me.

    The added benefit to getting a fast prime much like the 50 1.4, 35 2.0, 85 1.8 is primes are generally sharper than zooms and afford one the ability to shoot in lower light than zooms due to the lens large aperture, ie 1.4, 1.8, 2.0. The fastest zooms out there are 2.8 and those aren't cheap. Whereas the primes are faster, sharper and generally, if you don't buy L primes, they are more affordable than the fast constant zooms.
    Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Flickr | Twitter

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by aparmley
    I will say why you shouldn't get one.

    First off its 80 bucks - Quality control isn't the best on a 80 dollar product. Some people have sharp 50's some have 50's with focus problems. I am the latter. My 50 1.8 was recently replaced with the 50 1.4 USM version. Its a night and day difference in quality and performance for me.

    The added benefit to getting a fast prime much like the 50 1.4, 35 2.0, 85 1.8 is primes are generally sharper than zooms and afford one the ability to shoot in lower light than zooms due to the lens large aperture, ie 1.4, 1.8, 2.0. The fastest zooms out there are 2.8 and those aren't cheap. Whereas the primes are faster, sharper and generally, if you don't buy L primes, they are more affordable than the fast constant zooms.
    I am aware of the quality issue. However my question was not, why should I get the 50mm 1.8 and not the 50mm 1.4 or something to that effect, the question was, why should I have a 50mm lens? What purpose would it serve, what kind of photography etc etc. Remember I'm new to the SLR world and though I'm beginning to get some understanding about the meaning of all the letters and numbers, I'm still not completely clear on the whole thing. So, how much use would I get out of a 50mm lens in general? Would it sit in my bag if I have a 28-135 or would I use it and in what situations?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •